Please, will someone help me to work out my calories burned?
sefajane1
Posts: 322 Member
I've just completed my usual walk and as I don't have a step counter I decided to do it manually as I'm trying to figure out my exercise calories.
So, I walked 7090 steps in 48 minutes.
I walk at about 4 mph if that's relevant.
I'm a 5ft 4 inch, 50 year old female.
Current weight is 112.2lbs.
Any help in working out roughly what I would have burnt would be greatly appreciated. I've tried to do it myself but I'm totally confused! 😮
So, I walked 7090 steps in 48 minutes.
I walk at about 4 mph if that's relevant.
I'm a 5ft 4 inch, 50 year old female.
Current weight is 112.2lbs.
Any help in working out roughly what I would have burnt would be greatly appreciated. I've tried to do it myself but I'm totally confused! 😮
1
Replies
-
Forget counting. There is enough evidence to prove that unless you are exercising at an athlete level (2-5 hours per day) you won't burn a lot of calories. The average person burns only 10% of their calories through regular sustained exercise. On an average 1200 calorie diet (based on your height, weight, age and gender) that's only 120 calories.
If you want to lose weight you have to reduce your caloric intake in addition to regular exercise. Or try a keto diet. There is mounting evidence that proves it is a good choice health wise. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets38 -
So you walked about 3 miles? I'd estimate that to be about 150-200 calories, roughly. Maybe a little less since you weigh so little.2
-
Forget counting. There is enough evidence to prove that unless you are exercising at an athlete level (2-5 hours per day) you won't burn a lot of calories. The average person burns only 10% of their calories through regular sustained exercise. On an average 1200 calorie diet (based on your height, weight, age and gender) that's only 120 calories.
If you want to lose weight you have to reduce your caloric intake in addition to regular exercise. Or try a keto diet. There is mounting evidence that proves it is a good choice health wise. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets
Well as I'm only on 1200 calories I'd like to eat more if I can. 120 calories extra may not seem much to you but they're precious to me!
Keto? Nope, not for me thanks 😑26 -
A chart I found online would put you at about 160 calories for that walk.
A calculation I found:
0.57 x weight in lbs = calories burned per mile
However since I don’t know how many mile you covered it could be anywhere from 120 ish calories (2miles) to 191(3 miles).1 -
Forget counting. There is enough evidence to prove that unless you are exercising at an athlete level (2-5 hours per day) you won't burn a lot of calories. The average person burns only 10% of their calories through regular sustained exercise. On an average 1200 calorie diet (based on your height, weight, age and gender) that's only 120 calories.
If you want to lose weight you have to reduce your caloric intake in addition to regular exercise. Or try a keto diet. There is mounting evidence that proves it is a good choice health wise. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets
And I'm losing weight just fine. That's the issue. I'm trying to figure out my activity level and TDEE so that I know how much extra I can eat.7 -
There are lots of calculators. This site, many other calorie calculators. https://www.verywellfit.com/walking-calories-burned-by-miles-3887154
Sounds like you are using some sort of tracking device since you know steps, why not trust it for a while?
No one can give you exact numbers, or no more exact than any walking calculator on the web.
Track it for a month and adjust based on your weight.2 -
i'd keep it simple as mentionned in the other thread. if you are doing that sorta walking daily, i'd just increase the activity level one notch up from sedentary and eat that for 3 or so weeks and monitor.
ETA: or just set it to maintenance as mentionned and track.
the only way to REALLY know is to try for a good amount of time and monitor.1 -
Why are you on 1200 calories? Are you trying to lose weight? You are already at the lower end of a healthy weight range. I would think you could eat quite a bit more and maintain your current weight.3
-
I'm just trying to figure out my calorie burn so that I can work out my TDEE. I don't really want to lose much more weight but neither do I want to gain too much.
Maintenance it is then. I'll see how that goes after my holiday.
Thanks 😁👍💐0 -
-
Why are you on 1200 calories? Are you trying to lose weight? You are already at the lower end of a healthy weight range. I would think you could eat quite a bit more and maintain your current weight.
Yes, I wanted to lose some lbs before my holiday so that I can eat more relaxed. I've lost more than planned though and it's not a good look so I'll look to maintain after the holiday.0 -
Walking at 4mph for 48mins would be 3.2 miles.
Using physics (mass X distance X efficiency ratio) would give you a net calorie (note not gross calories that many apps and databases give you) would be 112lbs X 3.2miles X 0.3 efficiency ratio = 108cals.
BTW the efficiency ratio found by @shadow2soul sounds like it is a running formula (running is approximately twice as inefficient a movement as walking).
4 -
Walking at 4mph for 48mins would be 3.2 miles.
Using physics (mass X distance X efficiency ratio) would give you a net calorie (note not gross calories that many apps and databases give you) would be 112lbs X 3.2miles X 0.3 efficiency ratio = 108cals.
BTW the efficiency ratio found by @shadow2soul sounds like it is a running formala (running is approximately twice as inefficient a movement as walking).
So about 50% of MFP's calculation? I halve all exercise calories already so I'll keep doing that. Thank you 👍1 -
Walking at 4mph for 48mins would be 3.2 miles.
Using physics (mass X distance X efficiency ratio) would give you a net calorie (note not gross calories that many apps and databases give you) would be 112lbs X 3.2miles X 0.3 efficiency ratio = 108cals.
BTW the efficiency ratio found by @shadow2soul sounds like it is a running formala (running is approximately twice as inefficient a movement as walking).
So about 50% of MFP's calculation? I halve all exercise calories already so I'll keep doing that. Thank you 👍
I wouldn't advise halving ALL exercise calories as few are double reality. If you believe that a particular estimate is double then, and only then, does halving make sense in a mathematical sense.
Better to work on making your personal selection of regular exercise estimates reasonable.
The difference between net and gross calories is far more significant for low rate of burn but long duration exercise - like walking.4 -
Walking at 4mph for 48mins would be 3.2 miles.
Using physics (mass X distance X efficiency ratio) would give you a net calorie (note not gross calories that many apps and databases give you) would be 112lbs X 3.2miles X 0.3 efficiency ratio = 108cals.
BTW the efficiency ratio found by @shadow2soul sounds like it is a running formala (running is approximately twice as inefficient a movement as walking).
So about 50% of MFP's calculation? I halve all exercise calories already so I'll keep doing that. Thank you 👍
I wouldn't advise halving ALL exercise calories as few are double reality. If you believe that a particular estimate is double then, and only then, does halving make sense in a mathematical sense.
Better to work on making your personal selection of regular exercise estimates reasonable.
The difference between net and gross calories is far more significant for low rate of burn but long duration exercise - like walking.
You're calculation was close to half the MFP estimation and as walking is the only exercise I can get at the moment it seems I'm right to halve the MFP calorie burn, as I have been doing.
I thought that maybe I'm burning more calories (via exercise) than I realised but, it seems I'm not.0 -
MyFitnessPal app has the answer for you. You input what you desire either losing weight or gaining muscle it automatically computes it once you input your exercises. That’s a better option for you rather than computing it yourself. The app tells you how much weigh you will lose with a computation of food caloric intake, height and caloric deficit to get your desired weight. Hope that help. It’s easy and convenient too.1
-
leonoraoropesa wrote: »MyFitnessPal app has the answer for you. You input what you desire either losing weight or gaining muscle it automatically computes it once you input your exercises. That’s a better option for you rather than computing it yourself. The app tells you how much weigh you will lose with a computation of food caloric intake, height and caloric deficit to get your desired weight. Hope that help. It’s easy and convenient too.
Thanks but I understand all that. It's just I'm losing more weight than I want to (5.2lbs in the last 14 days, for example) so I thought it may have something to do with exercise.0 -
but you ARE losing faster than expected/wanted - so regardless the real life data is saying you do need to ADD calories. Real life data trumps calculations.4
-
Walking at 4mph for 48mins would be 3.2 miles.
Using physics (mass X distance X efficiency ratio) would give you a net calorie (note not gross calories that many apps and databases give you) would be 112lbs X 3.2miles X 0.3 efficiency ratio = 108cals.
BTW the efficiency ratio found by @shadow2soul sounds like it is a running formala (running is approximately twice as inefficient a movement as walking).
So about 50% of MFP's calculation? I halve all exercise calories already so I'll keep doing that. Thank you 👍
I wouldn't advise halving ALL exercise calories as few are double reality. If you believe that a particular estimate is double then, and only then, does halving make sense in a mathematical sense.
Better to work on making your personal selection of regular exercise estimates reasonable.
The difference between net and gross calories is far more significant for low rate of burn but long duration exercise - like walking.
You're calculation was close to half the MFP estimation and as walking is the only exercise I can get at the moment it seems I'm right to halve the MFP calorie burn, as I have been doing.
I thought that maybe I'm burning more calories (via exercise) than I realised but, it seems I'm not.
Then as walking is your only exercise it makes sense for you.
But it wouldn't make sense for other people who do a selection of different exercises each of which may potentially have a set of different personal and generic inaccuracies.
e.g. if walking is double reality it doesn't follow that the "strength training" database entry has the same degree of inaccuracy.6 -
Walking at 4mph for 48mins would be 3.2 miles.
Using physics (mass X distance X efficiency ratio) would give you a net calorie (note not gross calories that many apps and databases give you) would be 112lbs X 3.2miles X 0.3 efficiency ratio = 108cals.
BTW the efficiency ratio found by @shadow2soul sounds like it is a running formala (running is approximately twice as inefficient a movement as walking).
So about 50% of MFP's calculation? I halve all exercise calories already so I'll keep doing that. Thank you 👍
I wouldn't advise halving ALL exercise calories as few are double reality. If you believe that a particular estimate is double then, and only then, does halving make sense in a mathematical sense.
Better to work on making your personal selection of regular exercise estimates reasonable.
The difference between net and gross calories is far more significant for low rate of burn but long duration exercise - like walking.
You're calculation was close to half the MFP estimation and as walking is the only exercise I can get at the moment it seems I'm right to halve the MFP calorie burn, as I have been doing.
I thought that maybe I'm burning more calories (via exercise) than I realised but, it seems I'm not.
Then as walking is your only exercise it makes sense for you.
But it wouldn't make sense for other people who do a selection of different exercises each of which may potentially have a set of different personal and generic inaccuracies.
e.g. if walking is double reality it doesn't follow that the "strength training" database entry has the same degree of inaccuracy.
Except she's losing faster than she thinks she should be, she has a history of disordered thinking and besides, maybe 200 is right.
Here is a post she made in another thread:Ex anorexic here (more times than I care to remember at death's door) - believe me, starvation mode is not real.
I used the MFP numbers for food AND Exercise calories. I didn't use 50% of them, I ate every single delicious exercise calorie MyFitnessPal gave me when I was actively losing my 70+ pounds. They worked for me. The NEAT method that MFP uses (I believe) has a slightly higher calorie burn allotment. No need to undercut that even more if one is losing too quickly. I don't think the 200 calories is that far off. I always suggest people use the MFP numbers for a couple months and see what happens. For just as many people as not they are accurate.
sefajane1, you're teetering. Eat, eat more than 1200 and eat the exercise calories, all 208 of them.7 -
Good insight but...cmriverside wrote: »Walking at 4mph for 48mins would be 3.2 miles.
Using physics (mass X distance X efficiency ratio) would give you a net calorie (note not gross calories that many apps and databases give you) would be 112lbs X 3.2miles X 0.3 efficiency ratio = 108cals.
BTW the efficiency ratio found by @shadow2soul sounds like it is a running formala (running is approximately twice as inefficient a movement as walking).
So about 50% of MFP's calculation? I halve all exercise calories already so I'll keep doing that. Thank you 👍
I wouldn't advise halving ALL exercise calories as few are double reality. If you believe that a particular estimate is double then, and only then, does halving make sense in a mathematical sense.
Better to work on making your personal selection of regular exercise estimates reasonable.
The difference between net and gross calories is far more significant for low rate of burn but long duration exercise - like walking.
You're calculation was close to half the MFP estimation and as walking is the only exercise I can get at the moment it seems I'm right to halve the MFP calorie burn, as I have been doing.
I thought that maybe I'm burning more calories (via exercise) than I realised but, it seems I'm not.
Then as walking is your only exercise it makes sense for you.
But it wouldn't make sense for other people who do a selection of different exercises each of which may potentially have a set of different personal and generic inaccuracies.
e.g. if walking is double reality it doesn't follow that the "strength training" database entry has the same degree of inaccuracy.
Except she's losing faster than she thinks she should be, she has a history of disordered thinking and besides, maybe 200 is right.
Here is a post she made in another thread:Ex anorexic here (more times than I care to remember at death's door) - believe me, starvation mode is not real.
I used the MFP numbers for food AND Exercise calories. I didn't use 50% of them, I ate every single delicious exercise calorie MyFitnessPal gave me when I was actively losing my 70+ pounds. They worked for me. The NEAT method that MFP uses (I believe) has a slightly higher calorie burn allotment. No need to undercut that even more if one is losing too quickly. I don't think the 200 calories is that far off. I always suggest people use the MFP numbers for a couple months and see what happens. For just as many people as not they are accurate.
sefajane1, you're teetering. Eat, eat more than 1200 and eat the exercise calories, all 208 of them.
I wouldn't try to use slightly exaggerated walking calories to fix a fundamental problem with setting an inappropriate daily goal. Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic springs to mind.
Just the same as I wouldn't try to use deliberately under-estimated exercise calories to fix a food logging problem that many seem to try to do.
I've always eaten all my fairly spectacularly high amount of exercise calories and would encourage people just to see them as just a regular part of their calorie needs, not special or a bonus or a safety net....
Maybe having confidence in their estimates helps some people do that.
In the end all we can offer is guidance and support.4 -
Good insight but...cmriverside wrote: »Walking at 4mph for 48mins would be 3.2 miles.
Using physics (mass X distance X efficiency ratio) would give you a net calorie (note not gross calories that many apps and databases give you) would be 112lbs X 3.2miles X 0.3 efficiency ratio = 108cals.
BTW the efficiency ratio found by @shadow2soul sounds like it is a running formala (running is approximately twice as inefficient a movement as walking).
So about 50% of MFP's calculation? I halve all exercise calories already so I'll keep doing that. Thank you 👍
I wouldn't advise halving ALL exercise calories as few are double reality. If you believe that a particular estimate is double then, and only then, does halving make sense in a mathematical sense.
Better to work on making your personal selection of regular exercise estimates reasonable.
The difference between net and gross calories is far more significant for low rate of burn but long duration exercise - like walking.
You're calculation was close to half the MFP estimation and as walking is the only exercise I can get at the moment it seems I'm right to halve the MFP calorie burn, as I have been doing.
I thought that maybe I'm burning more calories (via exercise) than I realised but, it seems I'm not.
Then as walking is your only exercise it makes sense for you.
But it wouldn't make sense for other people who do a selection of different exercises each of which may potentially have a set of different personal and generic inaccuracies.
e.g. if walking is double reality it doesn't follow that the "strength training" database entry has the same degree of inaccuracy.
Except she's losing faster than she thinks she should be, she has a history of disordered thinking and besides, maybe 200 is right.
Here is a post she made in another thread:Ex anorexic here (more times than I care to remember at death's door) - believe me, starvation mode is not real.
I used the MFP numbers for food AND Exercise calories. I didn't use 50% of them, I ate every single delicious exercise calorie MyFitnessPal gave me when I was actively losing my 70+ pounds. They worked for me. The NEAT method that MFP uses (I believe) has a slightly higher calorie burn allotment. No need to undercut that even more if one is losing too quickly. I don't think the 200 calories is that far off. I always suggest people use the MFP numbers for a couple months and see what happens. For just as many people as not they are accurate.
sefajane1, you're teetering. Eat, eat more than 1200 and eat the exercise calories, all 208 of them.
I wouldn't try to use slightly exaggerated walking calories to fix a fundamental problem with setting an inappropriate daily goal. Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic springs to mind.
Just the same as I wouldn't try to use deliberately under-estimated exercise calories to fix a food logging problem that many seem to try to do.
I've always eaten all my fairly spectacularly high amount of exercise calories and would encourage people just to see them as just a regular part of their calorie needs, not special or a bonus or a safety net....
Maybe having confidence in their estimates helps some people do that.
In the end all we can offer is guidance and support.
...and yet - the Exercise calories were spot-on for me with my walking, and using a food scale.
It's always about using one's own numbers over Time to establish Trends. Not relying on a website or some talkers on a forum thread. (I'm talking about not-listening-to-me-as-well-as-you.)
Where's that hug emo...?
6 -
Personally, I don't usually eat my exercise calories, so I just use what the site gives me as a guideline. I know if I've worked extremely hard during the day and need some extra calories to keep my muscle, and I just adjust accordingly. But if you use one site only, even if the numbers are wrong, you'll learn that system and eat accordingly. My suggestion... don't jump from site to site looking for the "correct" numbers... I don't think there are any, each body is different. Just use what you're given and work with that.1
-
leonoraoropesa wrote: »MyFitnessPal app has the answer for you. You input what you desire either losing weight or gaining muscle it automatically computes it once you input your exercises. That’s a better option for you rather than computing it yourself. The app tells you how much weigh you will lose with a computation of food caloric intake, height and caloric deficit to get your desired weight. Hope that help. It’s easy and convenient too.
Thanks but I understand all that. It's just I'm losing more weight than I want to (5.2lbs in the last 14 days, for example) so I thought it may have something to do with exercise.
You are making the mistake of thinking a formula will give you the "right" number, and if you don't align with that number there is something wrong with you. But you have it backwards.
A TDEE is guesstimating your total calorie burn based on a few general stats. An exercise calculator is guesstimating your exercise calorie burn based on a few general stats. They are just guessing to give you a place to start, then you adjust based on how your body actually responds. There are all sorts of highly personalized things going on inside of you, and no calculator can tell you what is correct for each individual on the planet. Your data, your logging and your weight loss, ARE the accurate data you should be using to decide.
You are losing more weight than you want to. So eat more. It doesn't matter what the calculators say. There is nothing wrong with you if your body is burning more calories than a random equation guesstimates. I promise
8 -
cmriverside wrote: »
Good insight but...cmriverside wrote: »Walking at 4mph for 48mins would be 3.2 miles.
Using physics (mass X distance X efficiency ratio) would give you a net calorie (note not gross calories that many apps and databases give you) would be 112lbs X 3.2miles X 0.3 efficiency ratio = 108cals.
BTW the efficiency ratio found by @shadow2soul sounds like it is a running formala (running is approximately twice as inefficient a movement as walking).
So about 50% of MFP's calculation? I halve all exercise calories already so I'll keep doing that. Thank you 👍
I wouldn't advise halving ALL exercise calories as few are double reality. If you believe that a particular estimate is double then, and only then, does halving make sense in a mathematical sense.
Better to work on making your personal selection of regular exercise estimates reasonable.
The difference between net and gross calories is far more significant for low rate of burn but long duration exercise - like walking.
You're calculation was close to half the MFP estimation and as walking is the only exercise I can get at the moment it seems I'm right to halve the MFP calorie burn, as I have been doing.
I thought that maybe I'm burning more calories (via exercise) than I realised but, it seems I'm not.
Then as walking is your only exercise it makes sense for you.
But it wouldn't make sense for other people who do a selection of different exercises each of which may potentially have a set of different personal and generic inaccuracies.
e.g. if walking is double reality it doesn't follow that the "strength training" database entry has the same degree of inaccuracy.
Except she's losing faster than she thinks she should be, she has a history of disordered thinking and besides, maybe 200 is right.
Here is a post she made in another thread:Ex anorexic here (more times than I care to remember at death's door) - believe me, starvation mode is not real.
I used the MFP numbers for food AND Exercise calories. I didn't use 50% of them, I ate every single delicious exercise calorie MyFitnessPal gave me when I was actively losing my 70+ pounds. They worked for me. The NEAT method that MFP uses (I believe) has a slightly higher calorie burn allotment. No need to undercut that even more if one is losing too quickly. I don't think the 200 calories is that far off. I always suggest people use the MFP numbers for a couple months and see what happens. For just as many people as not they are accurate.
sefajane1, you're teetering. Eat, eat more than 1200 and eat the exercise calories, all 208 of them.
I wouldn't try to use slightly exaggerated walking calories to fix a fundamental problem with setting an inappropriate daily goal. Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic springs to mind.
Just the same as I wouldn't try to use deliberately under-estimated exercise calories to fix a food logging problem that many seem to try to do.
I've always eaten all my fairly spectacularly high amount of exercise calories and would encourage people just to see them as just a regular part of their calorie needs, not special or a bonus or a safety net....
Maybe having confidence in their estimates helps some people do that.
In the end all we can offer is guidance and support.
...and yet - the Exercise calories were spot-on for me with my walking, and using a food scale.
It's always about using one's own numbers over Time to establish Trends. Not relying on a website or some talkers on a forum thread. (I'm talking about not-listening-to-me-as-well-as-you.)
Where's that hug emo...?
But that's a false assumption.
Your calorie balance worked out - that does not validate all the component parts of estimating CI and CO.
2+2+2+2 = 8 and so does 1+1+3+3
None of us know our exact and changing BMR, activity and exercise precisely - nor to we need to in reality.
I fully support adjustments based on long term results though.
What I'm trying to convey is that putting some effort into making the component estimates more reasonable increases the chances of getting the right outcome rather than deliberately skewing some of the estimates to compensate for others. It also tends to account for changes better.4 -
cmriverside wrote: »
Good insight but...cmriverside wrote: »Walking at 4mph for 48mins would be 3.2 miles.
Using physics (mass X distance X efficiency ratio) would give you a net calorie (note not gross calories that many apps and databases give you) would be 112lbs X 3.2miles X 0.3 efficiency ratio = 108cals.
BTW the efficiency ratio found by @shadow2soul sounds like it is a running formala (running is approximately twice as inefficient a movement as walking).
So about 50% of MFP's calculation? I halve all exercise calories already so I'll keep doing that. Thank you 👍
I wouldn't advise halving ALL exercise calories as few are double reality. If you believe that a particular estimate is double then, and only then, does halving make sense in a mathematical sense.
Better to work on making your personal selection of regular exercise estimates reasonable.
The difference between net and gross calories is far more significant for low rate of burn but long duration exercise - like walking.
You're calculation was close to half the MFP estimation and as walking is the only exercise I can get at the moment it seems I'm right to halve the MFP calorie burn, as I have been doing.
I thought that maybe I'm burning more calories (via exercise) than I realised but, it seems I'm not.
Then as walking is your only exercise it makes sense for you.
But it wouldn't make sense for other people who do a selection of different exercises each of which may potentially have a set of different personal and generic inaccuracies.
e.g. if walking is double reality it doesn't follow that the "strength training" database entry has the same degree of inaccuracy.
Except she's losing faster than she thinks she should be, she has a history of disordered thinking and besides, maybe 200 is right.
Here is a post she made in another thread:Ex anorexic here (more times than I care to remember at death's door) - believe me, starvation mode is not real.
I used the MFP numbers for food AND Exercise calories. I didn't use 50% of them, I ate every single delicious exercise calorie MyFitnessPal gave me when I was actively losing my 70+ pounds. They worked for me. The NEAT method that MFP uses (I believe) has a slightly higher calorie burn allotment. No need to undercut that even more if one is losing too quickly. I don't think the 200 calories is that far off. I always suggest people use the MFP numbers for a couple months and see what happens. For just as many people as not they are accurate.
sefajane1, you're teetering. Eat, eat more than 1200 and eat the exercise calories, all 208 of them.
I wouldn't try to use slightly exaggerated walking calories to fix a fundamental problem with setting an inappropriate daily goal. Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic springs to mind.
Just the same as I wouldn't try to use deliberately under-estimated exercise calories to fix a food logging problem that many seem to try to do.
I've always eaten all my fairly spectacularly high amount of exercise calories and would encourage people just to see them as just a regular part of their calorie needs, not special or a bonus or a safety net....
Maybe having confidence in their estimates helps some people do that.
In the end all we can offer is guidance and support.
...and yet - the Exercise calories were spot-on for me with my walking, and using a food scale.
It's always about using one's own numbers over Time to establish Trends. Not relying on a website or some talkers on a forum thread. (I'm talking about not-listening-to-me-as-well-as-you.)
Where's that hug emo...?
But that's a false assumption.
Your calorie balance worked out - that does not validate all the component parts of estimating CI and CO.
2+2+2+2 = 8 and so does 1+1+3+3
None of us know our exact and changing BMR, activity and exercise precisely - nor to we need to in reality.
I fully support adjustments based on long term results though.
What I'm trying to convey is that putting some effort into making the component estimates more reasonable increases the chances of getting the right outcome rather than deliberately skewing some of the estimates to compensate for others. It also tends to account for changes better.
you say potatoes.
I suspect we are just coming at this from slightly different angles but saying sort of the same thing. I don't for one minute think I had perfect numbers. I just worked it as best I could based on results. The actual numbers are (surprisingly) not that important within a range.
My concern is that she admits to having almost died several times due to anorexia and you suggest getting the numbers just so.
Numbers/control/exactitude/perfectionism/anxiety are all major players in Eating Disorders. Worrying about exactitude is precisely like those deck chairs on that sinking unsinkable ocean liner you mentioned.
6 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »
Good insight but...cmriverside wrote: »Walking at 4mph for 48mins would be 3.2 miles.
Using physics (mass X distance X efficiency ratio) would give you a net calorie (note not gross calories that many apps and databases give you) would be 112lbs X 3.2miles X 0.3 efficiency ratio = 108cals.
BTW the efficiency ratio found by @shadow2soul sounds like it is a running formala (running is approximately twice as inefficient a movement as walking).
So about 50% of MFP's calculation? I halve all exercise calories already so I'll keep doing that. Thank you 👍
I wouldn't advise halving ALL exercise calories as few are double reality. If you believe that a particular estimate is double then, and only then, does halving make sense in a mathematical sense.
Better to work on making your personal selection of regular exercise estimates reasonable.
The difference between net and gross calories is far more significant for low rate of burn but long duration exercise - like walking.
You're calculation was close to half the MFP estimation and as walking is the only exercise I can get at the moment it seems I'm right to halve the MFP calorie burn, as I have been doing.
I thought that maybe I'm burning more calories (via exercise) than I realised but, it seems I'm not.
Then as walking is your only exercise it makes sense for you.
But it wouldn't make sense for other people who do a selection of different exercises each of which may potentially have a set of different personal and generic inaccuracies.
e.g. if walking is double reality it doesn't follow that the "strength training" database entry has the same degree of inaccuracy.
Except she's losing faster than she thinks she should be, she has a history of disordered thinking and besides, maybe 200 is right.
Here is a post she made in another thread:Ex anorexic here (more times than I care to remember at death's door) - believe me, starvation mode is not real.
I used the MFP numbers for food AND Exercise calories. I didn't use 50% of them, I ate every single delicious exercise calorie MyFitnessPal gave me when I was actively losing my 70+ pounds. They worked for me. The NEAT method that MFP uses (I believe) has a slightly higher calorie burn allotment. No need to undercut that even more if one is losing too quickly. I don't think the 200 calories is that far off. I always suggest people use the MFP numbers for a couple months and see what happens. For just as many people as not they are accurate.
sefajane1, you're teetering. Eat, eat more than 1200 and eat the exercise calories, all 208 of them.
I wouldn't try to use slightly exaggerated walking calories to fix a fundamental problem with setting an inappropriate daily goal. Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic springs to mind.
Just the same as I wouldn't try to use deliberately under-estimated exercise calories to fix a food logging problem that many seem to try to do.
I've always eaten all my fairly spectacularly high amount of exercise calories and would encourage people just to see them as just a regular part of their calorie needs, not special or a bonus or a safety net....
Maybe having confidence in their estimates helps some people do that.
In the end all we can offer is guidance and support.
...and yet - the Exercise calories were spot-on for me with my walking, and using a food scale.
It's always about using one's own numbers over Time to establish Trends. Not relying on a website or some talkers on a forum thread. (I'm talking about not-listening-to-me-as-well-as-you.)
Where's that hug emo...?
But that's a false assumption.
Your calorie balance worked out - that does not validate all the component parts of estimating CI and CO.
2+2+2+2 = 8 and so does 1+1+3+3
None of us know our exact and changing BMR, activity and exercise precisely - nor to we need to in reality.
I fully support adjustments based on long term results though.
What I'm trying to convey is that putting some effort into making the component estimates more reasonable increases the chances of getting the right outcome rather than deliberately skewing some of the estimates to compensate for others. It also tends to account for changes better.
you say potatoes.
I suspect we are just coming at this from slightly different angles but saying sort of the same thing. I don't for one minute think I had perfect numbers. I just worked it as best I could based on results. The actual numbers are (surprisingly) not that important within a range.
My concern is that she admits to having almost died several times due to anorexia and you suggest getting the numbers just so.
Numbers/control/exactitude/perfectionism/anxiety are all major players in Eating Disorders. Worrying about exactitude is precisely like those deck chairs on that sinking unsinkable ocean liner you mentioned.
I don't know and can't know the history of every poster!
It's not in my remit to fix everybody's problems.
We disagree. Lets leave it there.6 -
I'm just trying to encourage eating a lot more.
She's at 19 BMI and still losing (and saying she doesn't know what to do) and she's worried about 100 calories give-or-take on a single day's exercise.
It's a lot bigger problem than that.7 -
cmriverside wrote: »I'm just trying to encourage eating a lot more.
She's at 21 BMI and still losing (and saying she doesn't know what to do) and she's worried about 100 calories give-or-take on a single day's exercise.
It's a lot bigger problem than that.
FFS!
And adding 100 calories extra after a walk won't fix the bigger problem!
And that fix won't be universal.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions